How is it feasible for Jeb to beat Hillary?

[Saint Milei]

It is literally impossible. He will not get millenial support. He will not rally the base. No minority support. Hillary can also come off as less hawkish.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Getting popcorn for the 4 page long response from dudeabides.

...but yeah, he's been a pretty terrible candidate so far, thank God the money wants him. Mind you, there isn't a reasonable top-tier candidate who hasn't been pretty awful.

[Mehmentum]

Clinton's slightly favored.  Honestly, Jeb isn't that weak of a candidate, he's just in a horrible position to take advantage of Clinton's weaknesses.

Clinton's weaknesses are that by many, she's seen as a career politician, a Washington insider, part of a political dynasty, and corrupt.  While Bush could still try to criticize her on these points, it would be a lot less effective coming from him.

[Donald Trump 2016 !]

I'm starting to believe that Bush fatigue is stronger than I previously thought.

I think in a post citizens united world where candidates can woo billionaires for huge sums of money means that another candidate say, Walker or Rubio, can all of a sudden become competitive with Bush financially with a single check from a single donor.

We'll see in the debates and the aftermath.

[dudeabides]

It is literally impossible. He will not get millenial support. He will not rally the base. No minority support. Hillary can also come off as less hawkish.

I know the Paulbot narrative is that no one in the "establishment" can win is popular, but it just isn't so.

I am not supporting Rand Paul for President because he's soft on national defense, cares more about the rights of terrorists than those of American citizens, and he only seems to care about legalizing pot and letting criminals vote. Despite this, I still know that he is probably electable in a general election.

It's important when analyzing potential election outcomes to put aside one's own views. I wish Jeb Bush could easily beat Hillary Clinton, but I know it won't be easy. I also believe he has the best chance because he appeals to Hispanic voters, catholic voters, and political moderates because he has an inclusive message and he isn't pandering to the base the way Romney did four years ago. His economic message, plus not taking a hard line position on immigration, is a winning combination.

Getting popcorn for the 4 page long response from dudeabides.

...but yeah, he's been a pretty terrible candidate so far, thank God the money wants him. Mind you, there isn't a reasonable top-tier candidate who hasn't been pretty awful.

Thank God you don't know a thing about politics!

[Fuzzy Bear]

Getting popcorn for the 4 page long response from dudeabides.

...but yeah, he's been a pretty terrible candidate so far, thank God the money wants him. Mind you, there isn't a reasonable top-tier candidate who hasn't been pretty awful.

Once the nominees are picked, it all changes.  The GOP base won't love Jeb, but they hate Hillary, and will show up as much as they can motivate themselves to do so.  They won't stay home or vote the Constitution Party.  It's the right fringe voters that don't always show up and don't view Bush as much different than Clinton that may give 1% of the vote to the Libertarians or Constitution Party that would vote GOP when properly motivated, and in a game of inches, that's somewhat relevant.

Jeb's negatives are out there, starting with the fact that he's a Bush, and he carries those negatives into the general election, where the average voter doesn't want another Bush.  This is balanced out, somewhat, by the fact that there is a sentiment (to a lesser degree) that some voters don't really want another Clinton.  But he's a guy who is serviceable.  He's like a QB that isn't anything special, but if you put him in a system and limit him to 30 passes, he's OK.  He's the Andy Dalton of Presidential Candidates.  (Maybe we can re-name Jeb "Red Rifle Lite".)

Hillary, on the other hand, has less predictable negatives.  Her unlikability is something that works against her, and it's not certain as to how bad that can get.  And the e-mail and Benghazi issues are real question marks.  No one's going to jail or even getting indicted for either, but it doesn't mean that it won't resonate, and it's questionable as to how much it will resonate.  Perhaps the worst of this is going on right now and it will be resolved by general election time, but these issues are two of a string of ethics issues attached to Hillary.  After a while, some of it sticks and has the effect of making you unsavory.  This will happen to Hillary; the question is whether or not it will happen enough to cause her to lose.  It is still an open question as to how much the Clinton "stuff" (including Bill Clinton's scandals) will be a gift that keeps on giving for Jeb.

My guess is that Hillary will survive all the crap and be elected President.  The road will be tougher than expected, but Bill and Hillary Clinton have survived a torrent of scandals and actually become "the Establishment" of the Democratic Party (at least unofficially).  But it's a variable, and if Hillary can't contain damage control, the "unsavory" factor may be enough to nullify the legitimate Bush Fatigue factor that puts Jeb Bush in the underdog seat as of now.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

Romney would be stronger than Jeb Bush.

[DrScholl]

He's got the best chance out of any of the GOP candidates to win the general election.

[dudeabides]

Getting popcorn for the 4 page long response from dudeabides.

...but yeah, he's been a pretty terrible candidate so far, thank God the money wants him. Mind you, there isn't a reasonable top-tier candidate who hasn't been pretty awful.

Once the nominees are picked, it all changes.  The GOP base won't love Jeb, but they hate Hillary, and will show up as much as they can motivate themselves to do so.  They won't stay home or vote the Constitution Party.  It's the right fringe voters that don't always show up and don't view Bush as much different than Clinton that may give 1% of the vote to the Libertarians or Constitution Party that would vote GOP when properly motivated, and in a game of inches, that's somewhat relevant.

Jeb's negatives are out there, starting with the fact that he's a Bush, and he carries those negatives into the general election, where the average voter doesn't want another Bush.  This is balanced out, somewhat, by the fact that there is a sentiment (to a lesser degree) that some voters don't really want another Clinton.  But he's a guy who is serviceable.  He's like a QB that isn't anything special, but if you put him in a system and limit him to 30 passes, he's OK.  He's the Andy Dalton of Presidential Candidates.  (Maybe we can re-name Jeb "Red Rifle Lite".)

Hillary, on the other hand, has less predictable negatives.  Her unlikability is something that works against her, and it's not certain as to how bad that can get.  And the e-mail and Benghazi issues are real question marks.  No one's going to jail or even getting indicted for either, but it doesn't mean that it won't resonate, and it's questionable as to how much it will resonate.  Perhaps the worst of this is going on right now and it will be resolved by general election time, but these issues are two of a string of ethics issues attached to Hillary.  After a while, some of it sticks and has the effect of making you unsavory.  This will happen to Hillary; the question is whether or not it will happen enough to cause her to lose.  It is still an open question as to how much the Clinton "stuff" (including Bill Clinton's scandals) will be a gift that keeps on giving for Jeb.

My guess is that Hillary will survive all the crap and be elected President.  The road will be tougher than expected, but Bill and Hillary Clinton have survived a torrent of scandals and actually become "the Establishment" of the Democratic Party (at least unofficially).  But it's a variable, and if Hillary can't contain damage control, the "unsavory" factor may be enough to nullify the legitimate Bush Fatigue factor that puts Jeb Bush in the underdog seat as of now.

Back on planet earth:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/03/politics/obama-approval-rating-cnn-poll/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/06/03/it-may-be-a-bit-early-for-republicans-to-celebrate-the-george-w-bush-popularity-boom/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Romney would be stronger than Jeb Bush.

I tend to think so, but there's a caveat to that.  Romney disclosed a minimal amount of tax returns during the 2012 campaign, and given how much others have disclosed, that won't fly in 2016.  

I believe that one reason Romney lost is because he acted like someone with something to hide in those tax returns.  In a moment of candor, Ann Romney stated that Mitt wasn't releasing more information because Obama would attack him on the information.  That only added to the speculation of what Romney might be hiding.  At worst, evidence of a tax felony for which he received amnesty.  At best, a pattern of investment that would convincingly destroy his "job creator" narrative (a poorly thought-out strategy that helped beat Romney from the get-go).  Then, too, Romney committed his share of gaffes and was caught in flat-out lies more than once, which didn't help his image.  

Still, he's not a Bush, and his own record at Bain Capital is excellent.  On top of that, Mitt Romney was a good Governor of Massachusetts.  His real problem in 2012 was being crammed into a narrow, false narrative of "Mitt, the Job Creator" that made him look far more foolish than he ever needed to look.  That strategy, IMO, was far more harmful to Romney than the "47%" comments.

[Devils30]

Bush fatigue is strong, clinton fatigue is real but they cancel each other out. Obama voters stick with the Dems, romney voters stick with the GOP. Clinton wins.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

What makes you think that the 2016 election will be a referndum on the Bush and Clinton presidencies? Also, DeadPrez, Bush would do better with minorities than Romney. He will rally the base because the base hates Clinton. If you think Bush has a 0% chance of winning, you're wrong.  

Additionally, young voters will be more Republican in 2016 than 2012 or 2008.  How much will be the question, but every poll shows that the current 18 year olds are much more conservative than those 5 or 10 years ago (someone 18 on Election Day would have potentially only been 9 during the "hope and change" primary).

[dudeabides]

Romney would be stronger than Jeb Bush.

I tend to think so, but there's a caveat to that.  Romney disclosed a minimal amount of tax returns during the 2012 campaign, and given how much others have disclosed, that won't fly in 2016.  

I believe that one reason Romney lost is because he acted like someone with something to hide in those tax returns.  In a moment of candor, Ann Romney stated that Mitt wasn't releasing more information because Obama would attack him on the information.  That only added to the speculation of what Romney might be hiding.  At worst, evidence of a tax felony for which he received amnesty.  At best, a pattern of investment that would convincingly destroy his "job creator" narrative (a poorly thought-out strategy that helped beat Romney from the get-go).  Then, too, Romney committed his share of gaffes and was caught in flat-out lies more than once, which didn't help his image.  

Still, he's not a Bush, and his own record at Bain Capital is excellent.  On top of that, Mitt Romney was a good Governor of Massachusetts.  His real problem in 2012 was being crammed into a narrow, false narrative of "Mitt, the Job Creator" that made him look far more foolish than he ever needed to look.  That strategy, IMO, was far more harmful to Romney than the "47%" comments.

Your'e hatred for the Bush family, based on nothing, is hurting your'e ability to properly analyze politics.

Mitt Romney did not lose the 2012 election because of his tax returns, though that issue hurt him. He lost because he did nothing to reach out to minority voters, he pandered on immigration way too much, he didn't propose a very detailed economic plan, and he allowed Barack Obama's misleading attacks to dominate the race without properly responding.

Also, Mitt Romney had a great record at Bain, he was a decent Governor, but Jeb Bush was a far better Governor who also had a successful career in business during the 1980s and early 1990s.

I also agree with my friend TNVolunteer that this isn't going to be about Bush Vs. Clinton. It's going to be about Jeb Vs. Hillary. Jeb was a very successful Governor, and he was successful in business. Hillary will have to run on her record as a U.S. Senator, where she didn't get much done, and she will have to run on her controversial tenure as Secretary of State. Hillary Clinton will run for Barack Obama's third term, Jeb Bush will run as a Washington outsider. 

[RJEvans]

I disagree about minorities. Presumably, he'll do better than Romney with Hispanics. In addition, Clinton's weakness on being honest and trustworthy could be an insurmountable problem for her in a hypothetical matchup against Bush. Plus, he has the advantage of getting an early Super PAC lead. That is going to go a long way in defining a candidate.

[MisSkeptic]

Jeb Bush's own image will be one of his greatest challenges this election. Because of the many Republican candidates, he will have to not only quickly establish himself, but he'll have to compete with the other many Republican candidates who not only can make him or break him and to make sure he has the dedicated conservative voting base to back him in the general election.

My gut is telling me this will be a close election if both Hillary and Jeb faced off in the election. Hopefully she would win, though I'm not a fan of each of her views.

[Fuzzy Bear]

What makes you think that the 2016 election will be a referndum on the Bush and Clinton presidencies? Also, DeadPrez, Bush would do better with minorities than Romney. He will rally the base because the base hates Clinton. If you think Bush has a 0% chance of winning, you're wrong.  

Bush has a chance of winning, but he'd be an underdog, because the negatives of the Bushes will be more significant than the negatives against the Clintons.  People think more of Bill Clinton than George W. Bush at this point, granting that they think more of Bill than of Hillary.

The base hates Clinton, but I am not sure that Jeb Bush would do much better than Clinton amongst minorities.  He'll carry FL and improve over Obama with Cubans, and he may well improve amongst Texas Mexicans, but I doubt he'll make the kind of Hispanic inroads in NV and CO to significantly impact the Hispanic vote there, and he WON'T carry New Mexico.

But Bush could win.  He could well be the GOP nominee, and he well could beat Hillary Clinton.  Neither party has such an electoral college lock at this point to where it would take a miracle to win.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I beg your pardon sparky? You love declarative statements don't you?

Fuzzy is, of course, right. The base will begrudgingly get in line to defeat whomever the Democrats put up. But this risks being just as damaging a primary for the GOP as 2012, if not moreso. I commend Jeb Bush for not pandering the bat***t anti-brown element in the party. But there are consequences. Bush will likely have to tack significantly to the right on a number of fronts, simply because you cannot survive the GOP primary as the most considered or thoughtful.

It's a lesson in politics, if the base's support for a candidate is based primarily on who they are not, then you usually lose. See Dole, Kerry, Dukakis and Romney.

Frankly, it's a risk for Clinton and she does need to increase her favourables to ensure the base isn't just turning out to vote against the Republican.

I disagree about minorities. Presumably, he'll do better than Romney with Hispanics. In addition, Clinton's weakness on being honest and trustworthy could be an insurmountable problem for her in a hypothetical matchup against Bush. Plus, he has the advantage of getting an early Super PAC lead. That is going to go a long way in defining a candidate.

Bush will likely do better than Romney with hispanics, because, frankly, I doubt he could do worse. But at the same time, I expect Clinton to do slightly better with the white vote.

[MisSkeptic]

I disagree about minorities. Presumably, he'll do better than Romney with Hispanics. In addition, Clinton's weakness on being honest and trustworthy could be an insurmountable problem for her in a hypothetical matchup against Bush. Plus, he has the advantage of getting an early Super PAC lead. That is going to go a long way in defining a candidate.

This might sound offhanded, however I believe the majority of the Hispanic voting base has been alienated by Donald Trump's comments and the Republican parties lack of punishment for him. If you were Hispanic, or Mexican, would you readily support the party who insulted your people. Doesn't seem logical to me.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I think saying the base hates Clinton is as silly as saying the base hated Romney, "the base" is not a glob, it's very clearly defined groupings. Clinton has an issue with educated white liberals (including some college kids), but they were the most likely to move away from her when a viable (or even non-viable) alternative appeared, but you cannot be consistently over 50% of the vote if the base hates you. Romney had support from key elements of the base, but just had vocal sectors against him and more people attractive to parts of the base that didn't like him, hence his consistent under-performance in primary polls.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Romney would be stronger than Jeb Bush.

I tend to think so, but there's a caveat to that.  Romney disclosed a minimal amount of tax returns during the 2012 campaign, and given how much others have disclosed, that won't fly in 2016.  

I believe that one reason Romney lost is because he acted like someone with something to hide in those tax returns.  In a moment of candor, Ann Romney stated that Mitt wasn't releasing more information because Obama would attack him on the information.  That only added to the speculation of what Romney might be hiding.  At worst, evidence of a tax felony for which he received amnesty.  At best, a pattern of investment that would convincingly destroy his "job creator" narrative (a poorly thought-out strategy that helped beat Romney from the get-go).  Then, too, Romney committed his share of gaffes and was caught in flat-out lies more than once, which didn't help his image.  

Still, he's not a Bush, and his own record at Bain Capital is excellent.  On top of that, Mitt Romney was a good Governor of Massachusetts.  His real problem in 2012 was being crammed into a narrow, false narrative of "Mitt, the Job Creator" that made him look far more foolish than he ever needed to look.  That strategy, IMO, was far more harmful to Romney than the "47%" comments.

Your'e hatred for the Bush family, based on nothing, is hurting your'e ability to properly analyze politics.

Mitt Romney did not lose the 2012 election because of his tax returns, though that issue hurt him. He lost because he did nothing to reach out to minority voters, he pandered on immigration way too much, he didn't propose a very detailed economic plan, and he allowed Barack Obama's misleading attacks to dominate the race without properly responding.

Also, Mitt Romney had a great record at Bain, he was a decent Governor, but Jeb Bush was a far better Governor who also had a successful career in business during the 1980s and early 1990s.

I also agree with my friend TNVolunteer that this isn't going to be about Bush Vs. Clinton. It's going to be about Jeb Vs. Hillary. Jeb was a very successful Governor, and he was successful in business. Hillary will have to run on her record as a U.S. Senator, where she didn't get much done, and she will have to run on her controversial tenure as Secretary of State. Hillary Clinton will run for Barack Obama's third term, Jeb Bush will run as a Washington outsider. 

The Bush Family has governed for the best interests of Bechtel (Desert Storm) and Halliburton (Operation Iraqi Freedom).  The latter war was base on a false premise (WMDs) that were never located.  Two corporations, each of whom with alumni in Bush Administrations (Cap Weinberger and Dick Cheney) profited greatly as a result of these wars.

We here so much about the "wonderful example of integrity" of Bush 41.  This is a man who pardoned Cap Weinberger prior to standing trial in the Iran-Contra case.  Why the pardon?  Only Bush 41 knows, but one thing is for certain; the pardon ended all possibility that Cap Weinberger would ever implicate Bush 41 in court.  Insiders really know how to cover each other, eh?

Abuses of power that resulted in unnecessary wars and dead Americans.  A questionable pardon to cover up facts and preserve a legacy.  Huge profits for corporations that profit on nation-building whose execs are part of Bush Administrations.  Scripture commands us to abstain from even the appearance of impropriety.  The above-cited record fails the smell test by any reasonable standard, and it's enough of a reason for me not to ever trust Jeb Bush to any elective office again.

[Panhandle Progressive]

In my opinion it's all going to come down to social issues. I know many young adults who wouldn't even consider voting Republican because the party is so far behind on social issues. Against a fair minimum wage, against legalization of marijuana, pro-life and still anti-gay even after the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of supporters of marriage equality.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/183413/americans-continue-shift-left-key-moral-issues.aspx

[dudeabides]

Romney would be stronger than Jeb Bush.

I tend to think so, but there's a caveat to that.  Romney disclosed a minimal amount of tax returns during the 2012 campaign, and given how much others have disclosed, that won't fly in 2016.  

I believe that one reason Romney lost is because he acted like someone with something to hide in those tax returns.  In a moment of candor, Ann Romney stated that Mitt wasn't releasing more information because Obama would attack him on the information.  That only added to the speculation of what Romney might be hiding.  At worst, evidence of a tax felony for which he received amnesty.  At best, a pattern of investment that would convincingly destroy his "job creator" narrative (a poorly thought-out strategy that helped beat Romney from the get-go).  Then, too, Romney committed his share of gaffes and was caught in flat-out lies more than once, which didn't help his image.  

Still, he's not a Bush, and his own record at Bain Capital is excellent.  On top of that, Mitt Romney was a good Governor of Massachusetts.  His real problem in 2012 was being crammed into a narrow, false narrative of "Mitt, the Job Creator" that made him look far more foolish than he ever needed to look.  That strategy, IMO, was far more harmful to Romney than the "47%" comments.

Your'e hatred for the Bush family, based on nothing, is hurting your'e ability to properly analyze politics.

Mitt Romney did not lose the 2012 election because of his tax returns, though that issue hurt him. He lost because he did nothing to reach out to minority voters, he pandered on immigration way too much, he didn't propose a very detailed economic plan, and he allowed Barack Obama's misleading attacks to dominate the race without properly responding.

Also, Mitt Romney had a great record at Bain, he was a decent Governor, but Jeb Bush was a far better Governor who also had a successful career in business during the 1980s and early 1990s.

I also agree with my friend TNVolunteer that this isn't going to be about Bush Vs. Clinton. It's going to be about Jeb Vs. Hillary. Jeb was a very successful Governor, and he was successful in business. Hillary will have to run on her record as a U.S. Senator, where she didn't get much done, and she will have to run on her controversial tenure as Secretary of State. Hillary Clinton will run for Barack Obama's third term, Jeb Bush will run as a Washington outsider. 

The Bush Family has governed for the best interests of Bechtel (Desert Storm) and Halliburton (Operation Iraqi Freedom).  The latter war was base on a false premise (WMDs) that were never located.  Two corporations, each of whom with alumni in Bush Administrations (Cap Weinberger and Dick Cheney) profited greatly as a result of these wars.

We here so much about the "wonderful example of integrity" of Bush 41.  This is a man who pardoned Cap Weinberger prior to standing trial in the Iran-Contra case.  Why the pardon?  Only Bush 41 knows, but one thing is for certain; the pardon ended all possibility that Cap Weinberger would ever implicate Bush 41 in court.  Insiders really know how to cover each other, eh?

Abuses of power that resulted in unnecessary wars and dead Americans.  A questionable pardon to cover up facts and preserve a legacy.  Huge profits for corporations that profit on nation-building whose execs are part of Bush Administrations.  Scripture commands us to abstain from even the appearance of impropriety.  The above-cited record fails the smell test by any reasonable standard, and it's enough of a reason for me not to ever trust Jeb Bush to any elective office again.

The Bush family has governed with the national security interests of all Americans in mind. Very few people believe that George Bush went into Kuwait for any other reason than to stop Saddam Hussein from gaining more power and becoming a greater threat to the free world.

Also, you are saying that the mission in Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein was based on faulty intelligence and the absence of WMDs. We never found WMDs in Iraq, but we did find WMDs in Syria which backs up a 9 year old claim from Saddam's #2 that WMDs were transferred out of Iraq into Syria. We will probably never know if they actually did come from Iraq. We do know that Saddam defied weapons inspectors for years, that he had the capacity to build WMD, that he hated the United States, and that he had a murderous regime.

The fact of the matter is, George Bush, like Ronald Reagan, had no idea about the Iran-Contra affair until two years after it happened.

Judging Jeb Bush on his brother and father's record is completely irresponsible and wrong. When George Bush was Vice President and President, Jeb Bush was in business and was Florida's Secretary of Commerce. He was Governor of Florida when George W. Bush was President.

But, we are getting away from the issue at hand here. Luckily for Jeb Bush, most Americans don't buy into conspiracy theories about George H.W. Bush like you do. Most Americans won't judge Jeb Bush by the records of his father and brother. If he loses because of his last name, it's because of a distrust of dynasties, not because people are judging him on the records of his relatives. But I think because of his record, he will win. Time will tell but I can tell you this, I completely see the flaws of the Bush family. I don't agree with all the decisions of either Bush 41 or 43, mainly on economic policy. But I'm not supporting either one of them, I'm supporting the Former Governor of Florida.

By the way, your'e fellow Floridians certainly give Bush high marks - he left office with a 60% approval rating.

[Free Bird]

He inherently wins Florida and Colorado, and the right running mate should give him Ohio. He is proven to be the most competitive in Iowa, Virginia, and Nevada, giving him multiple paths to victory

[Mehmentum]

What makes you think that the 2016 election will be a referndum on the Bush and Clinton presidencies? Also, DeadPrez, Bush would do better with minorities than Romney. He will rally the base because the base hates Clinton. If you think Bush has a 0% chance of winning, you're wrong.  

Additionally, young voters will be more Republican in 2016 than 2012 or 2008.  How much will be the question, but every poll shows that the current 18 year olds are much more conservative than those 5 or 10 years ago (someone 18 on Election Day would have potentially only been 9 during the "hope and change" primary).

Could you link us to some of these polls?

2014 Exit polls show that 18 - 24 year olds voted the same as the 25-29 age group, both 16 - 17 points more Democratic than the nation.  If there is a conservative young generation, they weren't of voting age in 2014.

[Fuzzy Bear]

What makes you think that the 2016 election will be a referndum on the Bush and Clinton presidencies? Also, DeadPrez, Bush would do better with minorities than Romney. He will rally the base because the base hates Clinton. If you think Bush has a 0% chance of winning, you're wrong.  

Bush has a chance of winning, but he'd be an underdog, because the negatives of the Bushes will be more significant than the negatives against the Clintons.  People think more of Bill Clinton than George W. Bush at this point, granting that they think more of Bill than of Hillary.

The base hates Clinton, but I am not sure that Jeb Bush would do much better than any other Republican amongst minorities.  He'll carry FL and improve over Obama with Cubans, and he may well improve amongst Texas Mexicans, but I doubt he'll make the kind of Hispanic inroads in NV and CO to significantly impact the Hispanic vote there, and he WON'T carry New Mexico.

But Bush could win.  He could well be the GOP nominee, and he well could beat Hillary Clinton.  Neither party has such an electoral college lock at this point to where it would take a miracle to win.